Talk:Pier Gerlofs Donia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Pier Gerlofs Donia was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: June 9, 2007
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia There is a request, submitted by -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(-, for an audio version of this article to be created.

See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

The rationale behind the request is: "it I'll be fun haven thsi article spoken out, whith some of this man's great Frisian-quotationsand his shibboleth!".

See also: Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests and Wikipedia:Spoken articles.

Contents

[edit] Older comments

I moved the article about Pier Donia from "Greate Pier" to his real name. His nickname is what he is commonly referred by, but it has several variants. "Grutte Pier" (his local nickname) is what he is best known by (if anyone thinks his nickname should be the main article), this is also the subscript on his statue in Kimswerd. All common nicknames now redirect here. JeroenHoek 12:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A great article, about Grutte Pier, the leader of the Arumer Black Heap! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 16:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammatical makeover

Hi. At the request of a regular contributor to this article, I have gone through the existing (as of timestamp below) content, making sure that the English usage is correct and befitting of an article of this kind. However, may I please register my opinion, namely that hard, properly directed references are needed, rather than the loose collection of external links which are shown at the moment. I do not feel qualified to do the source directing, given my lack of knowledge of subject, so would be grateful if this could be attended to. Thus the reference tag on the article I'm afraid. Best wishes and good luck. Ref (chew)(do) 22:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have my permission to improve whatever you want to improve, Refwordslee! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 13:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You do not need to give or receive "permission" to edit articles. Please see WP:OWN. --Geniac 15:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galama

What is the evidence that Grutte Pier is descended from the Galama family? Now that Galema family is deleted, I can see the conmnection from there! Since this is controversial I would like to attach a genealogical note for this too. GB 23:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Galama - Gerlofs connection

Pier GERLOFS is the cousin of Ygo Gales Galama 3 times removed. Use the relationship calculator on langenberg-laagland.com to see family tree. Use Pier Gerlofs and Ygo Gales Galama names in calculator. Pier is not as far as I am aware descended from the Galama family, just cousins. Ezza61 14:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to the Langenberg-laagland website, which you've mentioned above, you are completely right. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 15:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Suggestions

  • In the Fiveval section there is a block of Frisian language. It is not clear what is the translation of this - is it the text above or below?
  • Also someone should make the inline citations, to satisfy the complaint embedded in the article, otherwise I think that others will fail the GA. GB 01:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 9, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Not well-written: weak prose.
2. Factually accurate?: Not even close: no references, no footnotes, lots of original research.
3. Broad in coverage?: Doesn't look like it.
4. Neutral point of view?: No. Article uses an obviously biased tone.
5. Article stability? Yes.
6. Images?: OK.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. —Anas talk? 10:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checklist

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

—Anas talk? 10:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA status comment

Hi. For what it's worth, and honestly not being hyper-critical (as I have contributed English grammar and spelling checks to this article myself), it is still a long way from qualifying as a "Good Article".

The main failings, in plain English, are:

  • that one editor has such a vested interest, through ancestry, that the article will never equalise on neutrality unless it is let loose to someone, or perhaps a group of people, who will NPOV it without interruption (Graeme, you are doing a great job by the way);
  • that a promised formatting of referencing by an admin has not materialised. The Printed references and the Internet references need separating, and the method of displaying the references needs to be altered for consistency.

I feel that interested editors need to refrain from putting this article up again at GA until the above major points have been addressed. Thanks, and good luck with it. Ref (chew)(do) 16:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

About the most points; you're right.

But what about the biased tone?

I think, I don't really understand that. After all, this man was a legendray warrior, often considered the world greatest (mainly in Frisia, where he's folk hero nr. 1 ;). So explain yourself. For the rest of it; I sure ain't critising it! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 19:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Who likes to lits this one, again, as GA-nominee? I think that with the completion of the last translation, it might fit the Good Article-status. 84.87.138.105 10:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Its still not ready yet. What is Fiveval or Vifeval? There should be a citation for this author, and a single spelling. It still needs to have the references tidied. Also in-line citations would help out. The biased tone becomes more apparent when you look at the what links here. And I must also admit that my ancestry is not entirely free of relatives to the subject of this article, but it is still possible to be neutral. Also even though I typed in the translation, this is not the last hurdle to GA. (And by the way I cannot read Frisian). GB 13:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you telling me, GB? That you have ancestors related to the great Pier Gerlofs Donia? Thats great! Are you a very big strongman aswell? Well, anyway, I hope you know what can be done about that so called "biased tone". Because I think the article is kinda neutral. Can you pick up some phrases which need special attention, in matters of tone and style? 84.87.138.105 18:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi 84.87.138.105, should I still be calling you H-O? Anyway my first specific request for you is to sort out how that Fiveval is really spelled? Can you get a reference for the name, as it seems to be absent from the internet - it may well be spelled wrongly! I have also put a cn tag on a part that needs a reference to support it.

Also the suggestion that be was a monarch by including the monarch infobox, and the box at the bottom suggesting that there was a sequence of rulers of Friesland is part of the non neutral point of view. Pier was only a self proclaimed monarch, not recognized by many others. Graeme Bartlett 12:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Names

I think this article looks like it has been written only for Frisian and Dutch readers. I suggest, in order to improve it, the Dutch and Frisian names should be set to the English words for them. For example; I changed Arumer Zwarte Hoop to Arumer Black Heap. -The Bold Guy- 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fair enough for all the languages involved to be included in the article, even if only as a foot note as it allows alternate names to be used for further research. Frisian is so similar to English that it is a challenge to make sense of it, although you may have better luck by listening to the spoken form. If the article on Arumer Black Heap returns then it could be translated there. Graeme Bartlett 12:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Was there an article on the Arumer Black Heap? What did it say? Who deleted it, and when? Do you know, perhaps, I am deeply interested in this Pier, and all the related articles. -The Bold Guy- 12:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrator User:Neil deleted the article due to its creation by a sockpuppet User:Haggawaga - Oegawagga, who actually contributed several useful if biased articles. If you can find a source you can write it. Graeme Bartlett 22:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering me, GraemeBartlett; that'le help me. I ahve a new suggestion, of adding Lord Donia to the List of undefeated military commanders, since he was never to be defeated; does that sound as a good thing to you? -The Bold Guy- 11:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fairly harmless to me, although a list like that does not sound very useful. I took a copy of Arumer Black Heap before it disappeared altogether, are you interested in this? I could put it in my sandbox. Graeme Bartlett 12:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, sorry for my answer being this late, but I really appreciate you re-adding the Arumer Black Heap-article; I'm pretty interested; was it a good article, or was it really just unreferenced crap? -The Bold Guy- 13:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you look in my sandbox? It lost references, but I would not call it crap, just biased! Graeme Bartlett 15:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I greatly dispute this articles neutrality. Since the tone is rather biased, I think large parts of the text need to be re-written yet again. It tone thus, needs to be changed dramaticly, or else. Thafadi Adahabou 09:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you know what you're talking about, you being such a disruptive troll as you are! You hven't even done a single good, valid edit, or you allready start complaining about the works of others, you ! -The Bold Guy- 13:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pier's height

I've found some sources claiming his height between 6,5 and 7,5ft, and his weight around 500lbs. -The Bold Guy- 12:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

500 pounds sounds too much! Was the pound back then different to what it is now? Did you attach the reference to the article? Graeme Bartlett 21:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerned about including height and weight - A height difference of 6,5 to 7,5 is a pretty big range, almost makes it a nonscence to include it. Perhaps just acknowledging he was a big guy is sufficient unless you have a genuine text reference. Also goes for the weight, 500 pounds (230 kilograms), that would make him the size of a sumo wrestler, I am not sure he would be traveling from one side of the country to another fighting battles at that weight. Is there a genuine text reference. This article has a history of being derailed with exaggerations, it now seems to be on the way to correcting that with inline references and deletion of misinformation, please do not let it slip back again. Concerned reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.170.186 (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reference actually said he weighed around 400 lbs, and that would make him 100lbs lighter. Also, when we look at his lenght, we see there are many people of about his heigt who are really strong. People such as Giant Silva, The Great Kali, and of course André the Giant. They were all heavier than him, and they couldn't behead people, nor did they work on the land for all there lives. His size was most likely to be enormous, and this way, the Giant of Kimswerd died young aged 40. -The Bold Guy- 13:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubts that he was 'big' but to give specifics without a true original source/reference is still just a guess. In which case it is probably better just to acknowledge that he was big and leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.95.40.4 (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think not. I've read some sources saying him being that big, so I added the height. And when I visited the Fries Museum museum, I saw his sword. That thing was real big, and when looking more closely at the shaft of the blade, you could see that whoever wielded the blade, must have had a couple of enormous hands. He must have had gigantism, or some other major growth deceases, and that might also explain him dieng young. -The Bold Guy- 17:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets be serious here. We know he was big but you just can't make up a height and weight to fit what you think he might have been. Please quote an original reference that gives the specifics you are talking about. I have not seen any. Gigantism!!! Please.. It was not unusual to die at what we would call an early age in the 1500s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.160.65 (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Pier himself was a decendant of Frisian warlord and chieftain Haring Harinxma, who lived hundred years earlier. That man also lived trough a though life, be he died at age of 81! And in the 1400s, the conditions of living were even worse than in the 1500s! So when looking at his ancestry, and genetics, he should have been able to reach a way higher age (he must have been rich after the sacking of many villages and the taking of over 50 ships). But he didn't get old, because he was ill. He must have had gigantism, when looking at these facts. Or some other decease which made him bigger! Because he was able to reach a much higher age than he did reach. -The Bold Guy- 11:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Back then they didn't have all the weights and equipment we have today so it shouldve been nearly impossible to get that strong. I think that he lacked the gene for the myostatin protein which would also explain his early death. Claidheamohmor 21:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Weights get you stronger, yeah, but did warriors train that days? No, they didn't! And still, I bet they were stronger and in better health than most people nowadays. How come? Because they cut of heads, wielded big weapons, ran towards and away enemies, rode horses (Grutte Pier didn't, I think...), and that way got loads of muscles due to their lifestyle. And you net this man was allways on the run for and after enemies, most of the time followed by an army of over 4000 soldiers of his own. So you bet he was damn strong; he did not need weights for gaining an enormous muscular body; he used to be a farmer and after that a warrior, so for all the time, he worked physically, and this must have made him enormously strong. -The Bold Guy- 14:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wijerd Gerlofs Donia

Wijard Gerlofs Donia, nephew to Pier, just got himself an article and I made it. -The Bold Guy- (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vaderlandsch woordenboek

I noticed the following source: Vaderlandsch Woordenboek By Jacobus Kok, Published 1791 J. Allart. The problem is that this is an encyclopaedia with 35 volumes. It's not clear which volume is cited. Baldrick90 (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cool article

Thiz really is one hell of a great article! And Grutte Pier was a real cool guy. But why is this article then B-class and not GA? Angela from the Blue (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to, you can allways just go and nominate the article for GA. But at the moment, I think the article is not ready yet. There must be done some things, like the spelling and typos who need to be fixed first. Make sure these minor corrections are made. That's all. -The Bold Guy- (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality

The Vaderlandsch Woordenboek P-R makes no mention of Greate Pier being gay or bisexual or anything similar. The 'sexuality' comments are mischevious nonsense and should be removed. Angela from the Blue has a history of Vandalism on pages and should truly make a 'new start'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.206.60 (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Can anybody else confrim the addition of the sexuality section? it seems a bit extreme personally. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It can be read from the writings of Peter Thaborita, who was the man's biographer. Angela from the Blue (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont personally have any of his works to independantly verify. Do you know somebody else who can independantly verfiy? Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not at the moment. These works of Thaborita are rare. They are in the Frisian national archieve partly, and the other part belongs to the private collection of someone who I know. So right now, there is nothing I can show you. Angela from the Blue (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I am inclined to remve the sections. They are very very bold assertions and if it cannot be re-verified i have to question it. I think the anon who started this threads concerns were valid. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And why is that, then? Because it is based on sources not everyone has access to? Well in that case I gladly invite you to Wonseradeel, Fryslan, where the collection of works by Thaborita is kept. Angela from the Blue (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Something does not add up about the section. Give me a day or two, i am doing some independat research trying to corrobrate it. Something about the wording of the quote and some other things just dont seem right. Ill let ya know what I figure out but as of now i am pretty suspicious. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can read old-Frisian, you might want to check it... I can also aks whether I may take digital pictures of the exact page mentioning Donia's sexuality and upload it as soon as possible. Angela from the Blue (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

if you take a picture of the page and upload it, that would be helpful. please male sure it is legible and leave me a note on my userpage when you do. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I will phone the owner of the text tomorrow and ask him whether I am allowed to take photo's. I'm not sure if it is legible, but when I upload it in a high revolution, you can allways zoom in! ;) Angela from the Blue (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this info should be removed. If Donia were gay, there would be reliable sources to point it out. Since the only reference seems to be in a privately held archive, it fails WP:NOR - specifically Wikipedia:No original research#Neutral point of view (NPOV). I'm removing the info until and unless a significant source can be found. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all information on him is based on the biography Thaborita wrote on him. It is one of the oldest still-excisting written sources about Donia. It has been used many times. Many other books use the information written in it. It is a reliable source and can be used fairly. So the section on Donia's sexuality should be kept. And if he weren't gay, you could replace it with one claiming how straight he was. But I bet you cannot find any source claiming he was a good husband, a womaniser nor anything on his contacts with women... Think about it! Angela from the Blue (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's been used as a source many times, can you point to another book, article, webpage, whatever that uses it as a source to state Donia's sexuality? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Satyr's removal. I was going to remove it in a day or to but wanted to assume good faith. However being bold was probably the most approproiate course of action. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
After taking a quick perusing through Angela's contribs, i see the assertion of pier's homosexuality has been tied into a plethora of other articles. I am removing them as I find them. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Headers on talk page

I changed the headers for a couple reasons. First, {{talkheader}} is only supposed to be used on controversial pages - says so right on the description page. Second, until and unless there's a reliable source that Donia was in fact homosexual or bisexual, there's no reason for this article to be a part of WP:LGBT. Third, I like {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} better than {{WikiProjectBanners}}. That's just my 2 cents, though :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. But the page is controversial. The man is considered a freedom fighting folk hero by many, but also considered a murderous thug by just as many others. He is portrayed heroically in books, and portrayed as a villain in tv series and films. Overall, you could call the man a rather controversial figure. So at least the talkheader should be re-added. Do you agree? Angela from the Blue (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

While there may be some controversy surrounding the man, he hasn't caused much of a stir on Wikipedia. Before a month ago, this talk page had less than 20K on it. And the article has been around since 2004. Take a look at the talk page of a controversial article where the tag applies - George W. Bush, for instance - 57 archived talk pages. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with satyr here. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gay\Straight

Grutte Pier is either gay or straight. Nothing else to it. No hard feelings. He just is. There is much notable sources backing up this claim. So why not add it to the article? Is there no source you people know claiming him to be queer? Then perhaps another source can be found stating just how manly he was and how much of a womanizer. But it must be either one of the two. A section must be made concerning his sexuality! When he's straight, then put that to the article. Angela from the Blue (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

AftB, find a source that states he's gay. Then we can talk. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any source claiming he is straight? The answer is simple: there is none. Then why not include that on the article? Another point: after the death of his wife, why didn't he remarry? Maybe because he prefered not it having to live with a woman! There is no source in which his attraction to any sex is mentioned. Not at all. Maybe he was asexual. Angela from the Blue (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, there's no source claiming he's straight that I've seen. That's why there's nothing in the article. And there's no need to add a "Sexuality" section (whatever his sexuality was) unless it's somehow relevant to why he's notable. Why are you so interested in adding something about sexuality? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That is because old writings of Peter Thaborita have caught my eye. These belonged to a friend of mines personal collection. You see, I am related to Thaborita via a bastard son of his (he was a monk, you see), and that is why this caughts my interests. In the original biography Thaborita wrote on Donia, there are some mentionings in which he states "Donia feels little or no affection to women around him" and there is a chapter in which is spoken about Donia's interests in boy servant of his. That is why. Angela from the Blue (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's kewl :) It's neat to find out you're related to famous people!
I'm afraid, however, the comments about his sexuality are going to have to remain "family history" - tales you can tell your children/nieces/other relations. Unless we have a reliable source, though, wikipedia isn't the place for that info. Thanks for clarifying for me! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Can Angela scan in and publish the writings of Peter Thaborita in the internet somewhere? Then others can read what he has to say and either confirm or reject the controversial statements. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


Well, indeed the tale is known in our family. But not more then on a rather local scale. I told my daughter this once - she told it at school and got laughed at by her teacher. So I was like: "why don't we try getting it on wikipedia?" So I tried. No I see I was going a bit to far; wikipedia needs sources and since I am unable to give them, I'll except the fact this will never be known to a wide audience. So be it. Thanks for your help and understanding, yours sincerely, Angela from the Blue (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pier's Sword

Regarding the sword of Pier Gerlofs: A curator at the Fries museum told me in 1998 that the sword on display was never actually meant to be wielded as one would a normal sword. It's type was specifically designed to be wielded swinging above one's head when defending battlements, thus attempting to behead anyone who tried to scale the walls. As such, it could be wielded by anyone with sufficient strength and extraordinary height of the wielder would have been a handicap because any part of a man's body protruding above the battlements was a vulnerability.

Pier's stature can therefore not be measured by the size of this sword nor is it very likely that he was actually it's owner. It makes good folklore, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.27.16.7 (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)